3 ms·
That makes me so angry. I'm not sure when the study was done, but that article was first (c) 2000. I have never had a doctor or nurse mention running a fan, a
by kbelder 4y ago
That makes me so angry.
I'm not sure when the study was done, but that article was first (c) 2000. I have never had a doctor or nurse mention running a fan, and neither my wife or I have come across that when researching care of our children... but a 72% decrease in fatality is pretty damn close to an outright cure. How is this not broadcast loudly to every parent of a newborn?
- Someone 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome: “Evidence is not sufficient for the use of fans (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22753789/)” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22753789/)” That paper is from 2012, but I can’t find a newer paper that changes that. For example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27940805/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27940805/, from 2016, doesn’t mention fans in its abstract.
- scruple 4y ago> How is this not broadcast loudly to every parent of a newborn? Having a child is an extremely frustrating experience from this point of view.
- touisteur 4y agoIt's also very frustrating because of so many competing and changing loudly broadcast advice, especially on SIDS. Yeah the science evolves but it's hard to follow when even pediatricians themselves don't always manage to stay up to date.
- open-paren 4y agoThis article¹ (you can find the full text on scihub) mentions that many flaws appear in the original study, such as "Only 6 of the 167 coroner-pronounced SIDS cases used fans, while only 36 of 309 controls used fans." and "The case and control groups were not similar at the beginning of the study." --- 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19414701/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19414701/